August 19, 2011

The Yglesias Award is for writers, politicians, columnists or pundits who actually criticize their own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what they believe.

Now, did I do that? I'm not sure I have a side. Or political allies. And some people question whether I even have beliefs! That should perhaps disqualify me for that award.

83 comments:

You developed a clear side within the last few years. I am a casual reader (although I look over your posts most days) and I rarely, if ever comment. I started reading this blog when I was a graduate student at UW and considering Law School and have continued since. For better or worse, it does seem that since your marriage, your political commentary and opinions have become pretty reliably conservative (certainly not on all things, but I've noticed a clear difference).

"since your marriage, your political commentary and opinions have become pretty reliably conservative"

Interesting you would say this. Because it would appear to be true.

My impression, still, is that on a whole lot of topics you don't match up with your predominantly conservative commentariot. And because you're in a predominantly liberal environment you tend to be interested in thinks that contrast with the dominant assumptions of those around you.

Which means that the assumptions of your being reliably conservative come out of precisely your willingness to make enemies with your otherwise liberal compatriots.

Yet, I'm still wondering if Sullivan thinks you're a conservative tweaking conservatives or a liberal tweaking liberals. I suspect he thinks you're willing to tweak conservatives as a conservative, but in reality you're especially deserving of the reward because of how much liberals have rejected you from their team, even though you're still 'one of them'.

your political commentary and opinions have become pretty reliably conservative (certainly not on all things, but I've noticed a clear difference)

I have a different take.

I think Meade alerts Althouse to more blogworthy items that show conservative viewpoints. When you comment on conservative topics, you may appear to be conservative.

Two other things: Althouse knows her audience and wants them to come back often. Conservative-leaning comments achieve that.

I think Althouse might be frustrated by the fool notions that some Democrats put forth, and her posts reflect a reaction against those. It's pointing out what is wrong so as to guide the party in the correct direction.

It seems a bit odd getting one for saying something positive about the guy you voted for. Most bloggers I read are much more anti-Obama than you and they periodically say positive things about him. But no Yglesias awards for them. There must be something else at work.

And there is--it simply makes no sense to award the Yglesias to conservatives because crossing the aisle on specific issues purely on principle is business as usual for them. Only among liberals is this unusual.

But, of course, you are not liberal nor really are you conservative. So it's not clear what aisle you crossed, but Sullivan seems to have determined that you crossed it.

Most likely, he has assigned you a side and a set of beliefs and you acted outside the box he put you in.

"The way I look at it, you could be luxuriating in the middle of a world of people kissing your ass. That's the lot of a teacher who's got the goodies to hand out. Instead, you've exposed yourself to people who look at things differently and who sometimes call you an asshole."

Well, you're kind of imagining a cushier environment than I really have here in Madison, where I'm pointed out as a heretic and denounced on a regular basis. If I had gone along to get along, I could have avoided that. But I could tell you the day (and maybe almost the hour) when I stopped doing that.

The nomination would be more applicable if Ann really was on the Left.

She took the Cruel Neutrality thing seriously and that's how, as once commenter put it, she became the Conservatives' lovable Liberal.

Since her courtship and marriage, she's moved farther to the right, although how far is, I think, very much in the eye of the beholder. Her encounters with the public sector unions and the politicians and the activists have been responsible for that, to a great degree, but what she wants still, IMHO, is for people to be happy, not to be in need, and to get along with one another.

It's just that now the failure of the Leftist model is making her own re-evaluate her assumptions.

I think Althouse is one of only about 4 liberals that comes here anymore. That's unfortunate. I think it's because, the left are pretty embarrassed by themselves lately. She has become more conservative (or less liberal) because she doesn't have the option of not showing up, so what can she do? She's not a quitter.

What's that you say, the times don't work out? Well, 'so they say'...By AndyLogic, Meade could be RLC in 'deep cover'. In fact, the name 'RLC' is another typical Althouse clue; the middle letter is two to the left of 'N', as in RNC, as in Republican National Committee. Fakes left, but in reality takes orders from Rove directly...

Giving you an "award" named after Yglesias is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard - as a blogger, he's not fit to carry your keyboard. Matty typifies the liberal pundit/journolist mindset: dull, predictable and clueless. Blech.

It's like giving Albert Pujols an award named after Mario Mendoza or something.

Althouse's blog followers are mostly Conservatives, some Libertarians and a handful of Liberals. Althouse is no Liberal, I suspect she may be independent at heart, but influenced by Meade into listening to the naughty devil on her right shoulder. It was refreshing today to see Althouse still has a mind of her own. I always suspected Meade is a bad influence, but he must have endearing qualities, no one is all bad.

Well, you're kind of imagining a cushier environment than I really have here in Madison, where I'm pointed out as a heretic and denounced on a regular basis. If I had gone along to get along, I could have avoided that. But I could tell you the day (and maybe almost the hour) when I stopped doing that.

But I could tell you the day (and maybe almost the hour) when I stopped doing that.

Intriguing. Mind expanding on that? What caused the decision to shun PC?

On another note: Right? Left? Just where does our hostess fit on the political spectrum? Perhaps she takes each issue on without bothering to consider its place on the spectrum. Such a practice can make for difficulty in classification.

As for her vote for Obama: A philosopher once held that we all do what we want to do and find reasons later. She thought Obama was a better choice than McCain – an opinion which comes close to what some conservatives feel, especially social conservatives – better a Democrat than McCain.

"Althouse is no Liberal, I suspect she may be independent at heart, but influenced by Meade into listening to the naughty devil on her right shoulder. It was refreshing today to see Althouse still has a mind of her own. I always suspected Meade is a bad influence, but he must have endearing qualities, no one is all bad."

Meade, like me, was pretty liberal most of his life, comes from a family that voted for Republicans, and was deeply affected by 9/11. We quite simpatico.

"Intriguing. Mind expanding on that? What caused the decision to shun PC? "

The day was September 11, 2001. The precise moment was when a colleague of mine announced with sincerity and fervor that the attacks occurred because of this. I had absorbed and been sensitive to so many things in the years since I decided to go to law school (in 1978). I had held my tongue. But I said "no" out loud and with undisguised disgust, and I never went back

I agree with your take on the comment of the co worker that 911 was in retribution for Powell skipping the Conference because of the assertion that Israel was a racist nation. Hell NO. PC can be carried too far and if we really don't feel that way, but just fall into line to be PC, we haven't been true to ourselves and do ourselves a disservice. Ann we are the same age, I still am a Liberal, but dont mind telling a Liberal they are full of shit IF warranted.

The award is named after Matt. I think it dates back to when both he and Andrew were both bloggers at the Atlantic.

Sullivan gives out (Michael) Moore and (Hugh) Hewitt awards, for intemperate left and right wing rhetoric respectively. In the old days, Sullivan was pretty equal opportunity. These days, the Moore awards are rare while the Hewitt awards are plentiful. Similarly, the Yglesias is more often awarded to right wingers criticizing their side than the reverse.

The "award" definitely means Andrew views Ann as in the Conservative / Republican camp, which is odd since despite his fervent Obama support and hatred of all things Bush, Palin, Romney, McCain and now Bachmann and Perry, he describes himself as "conservative." It's unclear why he doesn't extend the labeling courtesy to Ann he expects for himself.

In truth, he once was an eloquent voice for conservatives. I saw him as a kind of genius who made a compelling conservative, gay rights arguments from virtually within the conservative movement. A whole lot of conservatives were open to his ideas on that subject because he was such an gifted defender of the war on terror. He was once big on the idea of a "South Park conservative," a younger generation of cool conservatives to whom he felt aligned and who were his early blog fans.

Then Bush supported some anti-gay piece of legislation, and that was the beginning of the end of his conservative alliance. Weeks earlier he had blogged about how tough it was to defend Bush at parties, as most of his friends, like Chris Hitchens, were liberals. After what he clearly viewed as a betrayal, Andrew became over time an increasingly shrill critic of the George W. His conservative allies started to distance themselves. He had public blog feuds - some quite nasty - with Glenn Reynolds, James Taranto, and Mickey Kaus among others. Former foes, like Juan Cole, Paul Krugman and Josh Marshall, were slow to ally with Sullivan, so he had a period of time with few friends.

Evenually, Andrew's discussion of "South Park" conservatives disappeared. This was replaced by "Christianists" and other pejoritives for his erstwhile friends. These days, Sullivan tends to focus attention on what are to him the ugliest sides of the Conservative movement.

The openness conservatives once felt to his ideas on gay rights gradually diminished, and he came to be seen as just another liberal who could safely be ignored. I often wondered if he reflected on the degree to which he set his own cause back by his ideological transformation.

I still read the guy. His talent as a writer is undeniable, and he usually has something on his blog of interest. His bias and bitterness towards the right is ugly, so I "get" the unforgiving attitude of many.

Really? Don't you all remember some while back, when the masthead here read "Politics, and the aversion to politics"? There's a fairly large class of people who really don't want to have to think about politics and yet don't want politics done to them either. I fail to see what's wrong with that.

By age 60 the brain and the heart have fought it out, one gaining ascendancy. So we have a fork in the road: If the heart wins, one becomes totalitarian, knowing what's best for everyone and wishing to bestow it to one and all whether they want it or not. If the brain wins, one becomes libertarian, realizing how diverse the experiences and errors of life are.